Embattled copyright-trolling enterprise Prenda Law is being taken to task in a Los Angeles case, but there's a judge in San Francisco who has a few questions too.

In the District of Northern California, Prenda shell AF Holdings brought a lawsuit against a San Jose man named Joe Navasca. Once US District Judge Edward Chen ordered Prenda to put up $50,000 bond to proceed with the case, the anti-piracy law firm lost interest and tried to drop the whole thing.

The case is over—dismissed with prejudice. But the judge won't quite let it end until two things happen. First, Navasca's lawyer, Nick Ranallo, has a chance to ask for attorneys' fees from AF Holdings. And AF Holdings' lawyer must explain an unusual signature. Early in the case, AF Holdings signed an "ADR certification" document with the name "Salt Marsh," which was later explained to be a trust owned by Mark Lutz, the official owner of many Prenda shells. That's still somewhat fishy, since "Salt Marsh" claimed to have read certain documents and discussed them with his/her attorney. Chen asked to see the original.

Yesterday, Prenda filed papers saying the original isn't available. Mark Lutz, who owns AF Holdings, and Paul Duffy, Prenda Law's lawyer for many of its anti-piracy cases, are basically blaming former Prenda lawyer Brett Gibbs for the whole thing.

"My practice was to sign [ADR papers] on behalf of the Salt Marsh Trust and return them to Brett Gibbs," wrote Mark Lutz in his declaration. Duffy says he doesn't have the original, and Gibbs' lawyer says he doesn't have the original.

So there's no "Salt Marsh" original signature to be found. That would seem to be a violation of local litigation rules, which require signatures to be kept on file for a year following the resolution of a case. It remains to be seen how the judge will react.

While Duffy has been failing to find legally required documents, he has also been busy sending out a new batch of threat letters demanding that the accused pay Prenda thousands of dollars or have their neighbors told about pornography-related downloading accusations.

Duffy and his colleagues Mark Lutz, John Steele, and Paul Hansmeier all pled the Fifth when they were asked to explain their behavior in April.

While Duffy has been failing to find legally required documents, he has also been busy sending out a new batch of threat letters demanding that the accused pay Prenda thousands of dollars or have their neighbors told about pornography-related downloading accusations.

AFAIK, a trust can't "sign" a document - neither can a trust read nor acknowledge receipt of something. A trust officer or the trustholder can. So, I'd expect that should be an actual person's signature "acting as ____________ of Salt Marsh Trust" or something like that.

Man, Gibbs is just getting tossed around by everyone. Saw that coming. That guy is hosed.

Duffy and Lutz are probably not doing wise things at the moment and Hansmeier is in a weird position as well but I'll be honest, I could totally see Steele getting away without so much as a slap on the wrist by the time the smoke has cleared around these guys.

Honestly what I don't understand is how this isn't major news. Porn, incompetence, lying, gaming the legal system, defiant personalities, etc are all there. There's even enough material for a few hours on an issue of government systems that need reform. Better yet, it has lawyers everyone can hate!

I don't understand how these geniuses have managed it. The porn trolling business may be sleazy but it seems like it would be legal if they hadn't gone through all this shady trust nonsense. Why all the excess BS?

Honestly what I don't understand is how this isn't major news. Porn, incompetence, lying, gaming the legal system, defiant personalities, etc are all there. There's even enough material for a few hours on an issue of government systems that need reform. Better yet, it has lawyers everyone can hate!

How is this not everywhere?

It's spreading! With each new ridiculous Prenda claim, the infamy is circulating and reaching new readers. Special kudos to Ars Technica and popehat.com for making sure the world knows.

I don't understand how these geniuses have managed it. The porn trolling business may be sleazy but it seems like it would be legal if they hadn't gone through all this shady trust nonsense. Why all the excess BS?

Because (evidence is pointing to the notion that) they took the normal anti-piracy litigation scheme a step further and are actually manufacturing the targets to go after by "creating" "content" to go after. Normally, none of this shady trust business is necessary because the product exists before (and separate from) the litigation. In this case, they need all the smoke and mirrors to disguise the fact that there is no content to protect; the content exists solely to be pirated by their marks.

What I don't understand is why they created all of those fake identities. It's not illegal to sue people for copyright infringement. If that racket makes money, why don't you do it on your name? Were they just trying to avoid paying taxes? Because if your business model depends on the court system, sending them fake info is not the smartest thing to do.

Honestly what I don't understand is how this isn't major news. Porn, incompetence, lying, gaming the legal system, defiant personalities, etc are all there. There's even enough material for a few hours on an issue of government systems that need reform. Better yet, it has lawyers everyone can hate!

How is this not everywhere?

A vague guess shot in the dark: no major media players want to take the risk. The risk of trying to explain the legalese, the risk of being sued, the risk of people whining about all this porn talk.

Really, I don't know. It has Sex and Money. Maybe they are just waiting for Drugs and then it is game on.

I don't understand how these geniuses have managed it. The porn trolling business may be sleazy but it seems like it would be legal if they hadn't gone through all this shady trust nonsense. Why all the excess BS?

Because (evidence is pointing to the notion that) they took the normal anti-piracy litigation scheme a step further and are actually manufacturing the targets to go after by "creating" "content" to go after. Normally, none of this shady trust business is necessary because the product exists before (and separate from) the litigation. In this case, they need all the smoke and mirrors to disguise the fact that there is no content to protect; the content exists solely to be pirated by their marks.

What I don't understand is why they created all of those fake identities. It's not illegal to sue people for copyright infringement. If that racket makes money, why don't you do it on your name? Were they just trying to avoid paying taxes? Because if your business model depends on the court system, sending them fake info is not the smartest thing to do.

See my post above. The extra identities were also meant to disguise the incestuous nature of their setup. When the same people who are suing for copyright infringement own the production companies that made the films and the distributors who (allegedly) sell them and are the people benefiting from the litigation--well it's a little too obvious that the lawsuits are not about protecting IP and are about making a profit off the litigation (or threat thereof). These false fronts and fake people are all about being able to claim that the lawyers are not the ones benefiting. That would be a problem, legally.

Honestly what I don't understand is how this isn't major news. Porn, incompetence, lying, gaming the legal system, defiant personalities, etc are all there. There's even enough material for a few hours on an issue of government systems that need reform. Better yet, it has lawyers everyone can hate!

How is this not everywhere?

A vague guess shot in the dark: no major media players want to take the risk. The risk of trying to explain the legalese, the risk of being sued, the risk of people whining about all this porn talk.

Really, I don't know. It has Sex and Money. Maybe they are just waiting for Drugs and then it is game on.

What I don't understand is why they created all of those fake identities. It's not illegal to sue people for copyright infringement. If that racket makes money, why don't you do it on your name? Were they just trying to avoid paying taxes? Because if your business model depends on the court system, sending them fake info is not the smartest thing to do.

The offshore trusts are there to hide the money. The fake identities are there to hide the ownership of the offshore trusts. In my not-so-humble opinion.

What I don't understand is why they created all of those fake identities. It's not illegal to sue people for copyright infringement. If that racket makes money, why don't you do it on your name? Were they just trying to avoid paying taxes? Because if your business model depends on the court system, sending them fake info is not the smartest thing to do.

It's not illegal to sue people for stealing things they could have bought legally.

It's a shady area of unethical behaviour to sue people for stealing things that are not available for sale but can be stolen through convenient download links that the owners set up themselves and advertised as free downloads so they could write down the ip addresses of people who fell for it. And then threaten to tell on all their neighbours about their filthy pornographer ways if they don't give them hush money to sweep it under the rug.

It'll be interesting to see the path of lies they come up with to explain this. They already came up with the first one, now let's see if they follow the same path they did with Alan Cooper:

1) That Alan Cooper is not the same as our Alan Cooper.2) Oh, you want proof? Well too bad. Our guy isn't this guy, but we aren't going to bring him forward.3) Ohhhh, you mean THAAAAAT Alan Cooper. Yeah, he's totally the guy we got to run our shell corporation - by the way, did we mention he's clinically insane? Here, just look at this clearly doctored text message he sent me. WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED!?

The first lie doesn't seem necessary at this point as there's no identity theft charge (yet) but there's always an outside chance of that happening. You never know what whacky antics those assclowns at Prenda will be up to next!

I'll be interested to see the path of lies they come up with to explain this.

It does raise the interesting question of whether a company can suffer personality disorders. Can they collectively claim diminished capacity or something? Maybe if all of the principals submit psychological reviews showing similar pathologies, the individuals and company can seek leniency?

"Yeah, would you believe it? I swear to God that we got that signature, but for the life of me I can't find it! You won't be taking points off for this assignment, right? Where's Salt Marsh? I dunno man, he's one crazy dude, never shows up for courts or any of that business. Crazy, huh? Right?"

I'll be interested to see the path of lies they come up with to explain this. They already came up with the first one, now let's see if they follow the same path they did with Alan Cooper:

1) That Alan Cooper is not the same as our Alan Cooper.2) Oh, you want proof? Well too bad. Our guy isn't this guy, but we aren't going to bring him forward.3) Ohhhh, you mean THAAAAAT Alan Cooper. Yeah, he's totally the guy we got to run our shell corporation - by the way, did we mention he's clinically insane? Here, just look at this clearly doctored text message he sent me. WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED!?

The first lie doesn't seem necessary at this point as there's no identity theft charge (yet) but there's always an outside chance of that happening. You never know what whacky antics those assclowns at Prenda will be up to next!

These guys play with trust owner identity like a well-greased game of three-card monte.